We’ve had many more reviews of the book, including three very positive ones from Bud Ward of the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, Joe Romm of Climate Progress, and Josh Rosenau of ScienceBlogs. (Jim Giles of New Scientist also reviewed here, but it’s one of those reviews that you just don’t know how to characterize–mildly negative?)

Anyways, let’s listen to Ward first. The whole review is positive–he calls the book “a timely bromide for the science blues”–but this part was notable:

But it is in their “Is Our Scientists Learning?” (sic.) chapter and in their conclusion chapter that Mooney and Kirshenbaum offer what may be the book’s most valuable contributions. Here, they outline the woes, but also the promises and potentials, of the science community, and they issue a veritable call to action not just for more scientists, and certainly not for more scientists working “in isolation” from the society so badly needing them. Instead, they call for better scientific training of “more well-rounded scientists,” familiar with and comfortable dealing in policy, politics, society, and the media. They call for career paths supportive not only of scientific innovation, but also of scientific outreach.

Joe Romm, for his part, says of Unscientific America: “Buy it and read it.” He also takes our argument about training scientists to communicate and runs with it:

I do think that every scientist-in-training today should be required to take a course in communication, a course in energy, and a course in climate science. The smart ones will specialize in some discipline related to sustainability because when the nation and the world get desperate about global warming in the next decade or two, the entire focus of society, of scientists and engineers, and of academia will be directed toward a WWII-scale effort to mitigate what we can and adapting to the myriad miseries that our mypopic dawdling has made inevitable.

Josh Rosenau’s review is long and very sensitive–it characterizes our argument in great detail and with the utmost accuracy. He begins like this:

“Americans are dumb.” This is the reaction I get most often when talking about the creation/evolution conflict, and it’s the premise of many actions by the scientific community (which includes both scientists and a broader group of science advocates – science-ists if you will). If we could only educate people better – teach them about the fossils, tell them more about stem cells, explain the physics of light striking a carbon dioxide molecule – America’s trouble assimilating scientific findings would be resolved.

As Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum point out in their breezy Unscientific America, those solutions miss the point.

Yup. Rosenau agrees with us about the problems with the “deficit model”: “The solution,” he writes, “is not merely to better educate the public about what science says or how scientists know what they do, but to improve people’s appreciation of why science matters to what we all do in our lives.” Josh also goes on to point out that we really should have mentioned Mythbusters (point taken), and makes some fair-minded criticisms, while also defending us from other critics. Read the whole thing here.

“The first thing to notice is that Mooney and Kirshenbaum are confused about the nature of the problem. The goal is not to get more Americans to merely accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reasoning and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory. Doubt about evolution is merely a symptom of an underlying problem; the problem is faith itself—conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas occluded by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc. Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to imagine that we can get people to value intellectual honesty by lying to them”

Ouch. Having your book trashed in Science must hurt. Unfortunately I find Coyne’s review reasonable. Quite aside from the criticism of the treatment of the New Atheists, Coyne’s opinion seems to support other reviewers’ displeasure with the lack of substance and intellectual sophistication in the book. I hope the authors focus equally on these unfavorable reviews and not just on the good ones cited above.

I am puzzled as to why the both of you just don’t admit defeat: admit that your plethora of studied and reasonable critics actually “have a point”, and correct the glaring faults in your otherwise commendable address.

What is it that is preventing you from admitting at least partial fault?
Pride?
Embarrassment?
Cowardice?

I refuse to believe that as some have suggested that it is feigned ignorance dependent upon short-term income projections.

Why bother? Harris, Hitchens, Myers and even Dawkins to some extent have marginalized themselves to the point of irrelevance. They are tiresome and as predictable as the sunrise. They have no new message and nothing to add to any reasonable conversation.

This small cadre is always engaged in trying to enter into any conversation that will give them attention and legitimacy

Wow. Fox, I have to say I am bowled over by your insight. Your comments clearly indicate that you have read the nuanced and lengthy Harris piece in great detail, and your criticism is extremely sophisticated and completely devoid of generalizations and sound bytes. Keep up the good work my friend.

I read the review at Laelaps. At least it comes up with something. Here is where some of the criticism of the book goes wrong.

—- I am not convinced, for instance, that public controversies about evolution, stem cell research, anthropogenic climate change, &c. can be solved by getting more scientists to become media-savvy. Brian Switek

Of course scientific controversies aren’t likely to be solved by getting scientists to be more intelligent about communicating with the public at large, but when it comes to funding and public support of science, among the real problems scientists have, inept communication sure isn’t going to help.

—- These controversies stem from the way personal, religious, and business interests filter (and sometimes distort) scientific information. Brian Switek

And if you’ve got a concerted effort to distort scientific information and there isn’t a smart response by those who could set the record straight, it sure isn’t going to be an effective response, never mind an efficient prevention.

— Even if scientists did tweak the delivery of their message there is no guarantee it would be happily received by the public. Brian Switek

No, making the effort doesn’t come with a guarantee that it will be happily received by the public, not making the effort is guaranteed, to not even make the attempt.

— It is not so much the message that is the problem as the way it is being transmitted and received. Brian Switek

So, who does Brian Switek propose transmit the message? People who don’t understand it?

“I hear there’s a review of UA in Science. Will that be discussed here?- Peter Beattie.

I’ll tell you Pete, if you want a lot of discussion on that review, you could go over to Pharnygula where you usually hang out. There’s going to be a lot of discussion there. But, I can’t see any reason why Chris or SK would want to discuss it. They discussed it when they wrote the book. The book speaks for itself, Jerry Coyne notwithstanding.

I hope you’re not going to discuss it. My previous encounters with your posts were long and tiresome. There was one on a thread about Eugenie Scott where you went on and on. If anyone has time to burn, it’s #62 post on that thread. Or, they could read the one on the thread Myers v. Unscientific America, Pt. 1. Again a long and convoluted post. That was post #81 on that thread.

I might add that in each of those two posts you made it quite clear that you were in complete agreement with PZ. How surprising.

Earlier today PZ had a poll he wanted you guys to crash. So you better hotfoot it back there. And be sure to give him my best, Pete.

This blog has just become a parody of what a science blog should be. Simply posting parts of reviews that agree with your latest book isn’t scientific. It is what I have come to expect from parts of the Humanities.

Reading up the thread again, look at how they’ve tolerated other people presuming to define who is and isn’t a troll on their blog. It’s kind of funny how their opponents seem to figure it’s their right to label CM and SK’s supporters as trolls on their blog.

What is there so difficult to understand? Presently, Mr. Mooney and Ms. Kirschenbaum use this blog mainly to market their book. Therefore one can not expect them to debate the issues in the book for free.

Once the dust settles and nobody buys the book anymore, Mr. Mooney and Ms. Kirschenbaum will probably start to debate the issues again. Also, after the marketing pressures have gone, there will be room to confess the “maturation” of ideas, as has happened before:

That would be as opposed to Jerry Coyne who gave his blog the same name as his book, the only reason I happened to come across his blog to start with.

— I don’t see it as impossible that the present accomodationist stand of M&K will turn once again towards confronting the irrationalities of religion. Matti K.

That would be as opposed to the irrationality of the new atheism which makes all kinds of claims about the mental instability of religious people, despite the high functioning of many of them and about the impossibility of the coexistence of science and religion in society and in individual scientists and others who accept science with little trouble. That is despite massive empirical evidence that the prejudice of the new atheists is factually incorrect.

And that’s not getting to the arrogance of the new atheists who claim the mantle of reason as they demonstrate they’re quite selective in their practice of it, when not entirely immune to its exigencies.

Ah, the mutual marginalization gambit. As if it’s not something we’ve seen before. Sorbet, you can go right on flattering yourself, I don’t even care that much. Not even when Peter’s helping you along.

I don’t know about anyone else but I’ve been enjoying this, the first stretch of sunny weather my section of New England has had this summer. Too late to rescue large parts of the garden but lopping down invasives has been gratifying.

“I left your preferred style of intellectual engagement back in jr. high.”

I think I can still do atheistic intellectual engagement. Let’s see:

“Silver, I believe in Vishnu, Fox. Show us your proof for your imaginary god, Foxy. If you can’t you’re a delusional idiot. You get no respect here because you’re a lying troll. You’re a godbot and a wackaloon. You’re not fooling anyone here Foxy; we are the few and the proud because we worship reason and freethinking. By our superior intellects we have risen above the common ilk. We are the brights and have replaced your “gods” in the Parthenon of the Illuminati. Science is the mace of our power by which we have mastered the universe.”

Well, I don’t guess I’m all that good at it. I suppose I’m not delusional enough.

I really try to be constructive, Anthony, as e.g. when I said anyone would be willing to discuss real evidence for the Mostly Old and Grey Atheists’ style of engagement being counter-productive and turning undecided people off of science. Something along the lines of RD.net’s Converts’ Corner would be a start. But you will have noticed that I never got a response to that. In the meantime, please don’t be disappointed when I throw in the odd reference to a favourite TV show, or otherwise try to get a laugh out of one or two people here. All in good fun.

This takes us to Professor Coyne. He recently wrote the introduction of a promised multi-part review of Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s new book Unscientific America. I have not yet read the book, which laments native scientific know-nothingness. But clearly the book has struck a doctrinal nerve among the Personality-Cult O’ Dawkins. So much so that if you didn’t know you might think that that Mooney and Kirshenbaum are anti-science Christian fanatics from the Discovery Institute. They are not; they have great street creds in the fight against the misguided, anti-science side of Christianity.

But that’s not good enough. Just like there are people for whom even Ann Coulter is not conservative enough, there are those inhabitants of the lunatic-fringe like Jerry Coyne for whom the Chris Mooney’s of the world fall outside the pale of orthodoxy—and the lidless-eyed New Atheist blogs are the Inquisition that charges, tries, convicts and judges all New Atheist apostasy.

Of course it’s not a demand for anything. It’s an invitation to take a joke for what it is. The part that I added to the discussion (re something à la Converts’ Corner) you have again ignored. That can certainly not mean many things; it’s rather specific and it entails a promise to engage in an honest debate about your (and M&K’s) claim. What else could you possibly expect?

I’m trying to get somewhere with you here, Anthony, because I had hoped that perhaps you would still like to engage in a real dialogue. It must be frustrating for you as well to have the impression that you’re dealing with people who have already made up their minds and would not have them changed for all the crackers in the world. I’m trying to say, ‘Go ahead and change my mind!’ I would have hoped that that would still count for something.

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by Salon.com and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs.
For a longer bio and contact information, see here.